I updated again.

The new version only requires non-standard transactions on one of the two
networks.

Next step is a simple TCP / RPC server that will implement the protocol to
trade between testnet and mainnet.  Timeouts of much less than 24 hours
should be possible now.


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
>
>> Instead of TX0, TX1, etc, can you put some kind of meaningful identifier
>> for
>> these transactions?
>>
>
> Sorry, that is the names come from the original thread, where I was
> outlining the idea.  I updated the names.
>
>
>> TX1 and TX2 *cannot* be signed until after TX0 is completely signed by
>> both
>> parties.
>
>
> The bail in transactions are only signed by one of the parties.  They are
> kept secret until the refund/payout transactions are all properly signed.
>
> There is a malleability risk though, hence the need for the 3rd party.
>
> It works on the same refund principle as payment channels.
>
> After TX0 is signed, but before TX2 is signed, either party could
>> walk away or otherwise hold the funds hostage. The sequence of signing
>> proposed in this BIP is *not possible to perform*.
>
>
> TX0 is not broadcast until the refund transactions are complete.
>
>
>> How did you implement and test this? :/
>>
>
> This is a draft at the moment.
>
> There is an implementation of (almost) this system but not by me.  This
> proposal reduces the number of non-standard transaction types required.
>
> A full implement is the next step.
>
>
>> What is the purpose of the OP_EQUAL_VERIFY in TX4? I don't see a use...
>>
>
> That is a typo, I have updated it.
>
>
>> IMO, there should be separate BIPs for the exchange itself, and the
>> protocol
>> to negotiate the exchange.
>
>
> I can do that.
>
>
>> I would recommend changing the latter from JSON-RPC
>> to some extension of the Payment Protocol, if possible.
>>
>
> I wanted it to be as simple as possible, but I guess MIME is just a
> different way of doing things.
>
>>
>> Perhaps it would be good to only support compressed keys, to discourage
>> use of
>> uncompressed ones..
>>
>
> I would have no objection.
>
>
>>
>> Luke
>>
>
>